Return to Transcripts main page

Erin Burnett Outfront

Trump Desperate For Donations As Clock Ticks On Paying $464M Bond; Democrats, GOP Clash Over Witness During Biden Impeachment Hearing; Oprah Speaks To CNN. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired March 20, 2024 - 19:00   ET




Trump wants every day regular people, voters to help him pay half a billion dollars in the next few days. Meanwhile, Trump Org is reportedly building new property in Florida that would cost millions of dollars. So, is Trump really out of cash?

Plus, a motion to impeach Biden today rejected by Republicans. Why? Well, they don't have the votes. The Biden impeachment investigation losing more steam tonight.

And Oprah Winfrey speaking for the first time tonight about for dramatic way heat loss to Gayle King and Charles Barkley. And you will get the first preview here this hour.

Let's go OUTFRONT.

And good evening. I'm Erin Burnett.

OUTFRONT tonight: Trump turning to voters, asking them to pay his bond, his $464 million bond. He says that it's unfair. So he wants other people, regular Americans, to foot the bill, a whole new definition of other people's money, sending this text message, quote, keep your filthy hands off Trump Tower. Democrats want to seize my properties. And then you see there, the link to donate money.

Now, Trump says he does not have enough money to finance the $464 million bond and the clock is ticking. He has just five days to come up with the money or the New York attorney general, Letitia James, is threatening to see some of his most beloved properties.

But James tonight making it clear, she says that Trump does have the money. He just doesn't want to fork it over.

In a filing tonight, James writes, quote: If Trump were truly unable to secure the bond, quote, they at minimum should have consented to have their real-estate interests held by the Supreme Court to satisfy the judgment. Now, Trump has refused to do this. In fact, what he has said is that the best he could do is $100 million of the $464 million required, which is why this story today caught our attention in "The Palm Beach Post". They report that Eric Trump said in a statement today, quote, we look forward to adding this beautiful building two are already amazing property and club, Trump National Golf Club Jupiter.

Now, Trump is referring to plans to build a new office complex at the Trump National in Jupiter. And according to "The Palm Beach Post", the price tag on this building would be $12 million to $15 million.

Now, if that really is the case, this one example just serves to raise the very real questions that are out there. Because Trump cannot say he does not have any more money if there's $15 million here and $15 million there. And who's now how much however there, you get the point. Maybe he's just hoping that nobody looks too hard, that the web of complexity of his businesses is just too opaque to see through, because maybe he just wants people to see only the buildings that he is refusing to put on the line, the ones that made him a brand to America in the open of "The Apprentice", the ones that define not just his net worth, but his self-worth.

And that is why the very thought that New York could seize Trumps properties is deeply personal to him. I mean, just listen to this. It goes all the way back when we talk about net worth and self-worth.

Here is Trump with Connie Chung in an interview in 1990.


DONALD TRUMP, THEN-BUSINESSMAN: When I bought the Plaza Hotel, to me that's exciting because it's -- it's a trophy. It's a total trophy. When I build Trump Tower, or when I build the Taj Mahal --

CONNIE CHUNG, NEWS ANCHOR AND REPORTER: But you know, it sounds like marbles (ph). Do you understand that?

TRUMP: But it's exciting and part of the reason it's exciting is because they're mega deals. They're important deals. They're glamorous deals. Everybody talks about them. Everybody reads about them and writes about them. There's a level of importance there that I think also somewhat turns me on.


BURNETT: Well, there is one asset above all though, that may matter to him even now, more than any other.


TRUMP: My thing would be Trump Tower next to Tiffany. That really is the building that -- that's very special.

LARRY KING, FORMER CNN HOST: Even though Grand Hyatt was the first.

TRUMP: Well, Grand Hyatt was the first, but that -- I wasn't married to it. I got a price that was a good deal for me and a good deal for Hyatt. They were really happy to get it but --

KING: No emotional ties.

TRUMP: I think there was no real emotional ties -- a little bit. Trump Tower would be the thing I'm really married to in terms of real estate.


BURNETT: And so this might be one divorce that Trump is not willing to go ahead with.

Kara Scannell is OUTFRONT live outside Trump Tower.

And, Kara, the attorney general is not letting up on Trump here as these hours and days tick away, and she is telling him to find the money.

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Erin, that's right. I mean, she's telling me appeals court not to even take into consideration Trump's filing on Monday where he said that they have tried to get a bond from 30 different insurance underwriters. None of them willing to underwrite and secure the bond back by property. And she's saying that the appeals court shouldn't give that any credence. They're saying that Trump doesn't even detail what efforts they made to get the bond, what kind of terms the underwriters were offering, what properties Trump offer to put up as collateral.


That was one of the points they pushed back on. And another point, as she was, you know, even taking a swipe at Trump and saying that maybe one of the issues is that the properties are just not worth what he believes that they aren't. That, of course, was the entire point of the trial that the judge had found that Trump did inflate the value of his properties.

I mean, the A.G.'s office also suggesting that maybe there could be a pooling of underwriters that all come together and put up to half a billion dollars. Trump's team has said that that was not feeling feasible.

They are pushing back tonight and in a statement, their attorney Chris Kise says: The attorney general's latest filing demonstrates her continued willingness to misrepresent the facts and misconstrue applicable law in her political crusade against President Trump. Today's missive does not even bother to cite New York case law.

Now, this is ultimately up to the New York appeals court. They have now heard from the attorney general's office. They've heard from Trump and they may even hear more from Trump as the clock is ticking here. But Trump has asked them to be permitted to put up a smaller dollar amount than the half a billion dollars, or not require them to put up any money until this whole appeal is over. The A.G.s office opposes that.

As you say, Trump has five days to come up with the cash or the New York attorney general's office, if the appeals court doesn't rule, could move forward and tried to seize some of his assets and Trump's family has called these assets Mona Lisas -- Erin.

BURNETT: Mona Lisas.

All right. Thank you very much, Kara. And should point out, of course, that in New York law is it would apply to anybody else, would require them to put the money up.

So, not having to put it up just because it's a large amount would go against precedent and the experience of anybody else who owes it.

All right. OUTFRONT now, Ryan Goodman, our OUTFRONT legal analysts. Also, Stephanie Grisham, the former White House press secretary for then-President Trump, and Jonathan Greenberg, investigative journalist who has covered Trump in his finances for decades. He says that Trump did not tell him the truth when he worked at Forbes about his wealth in an effort to get on the Forbes list of wealthiest Americans.

Ryan, let me start with you.

So, just the very basics here, Trump says he's got $100 million and by the way, he had -- has pledged as much to E. Jean Carroll in that case. So that would mean a couple of hundred million at least have been put forward, says he doesn't have the remainder, but you've read through the filing from the New York attorney general today when she says, well, you could have gotten backing from insurance companies for little pieces of it as opposed to the whole thing, you could have had assets be held by the Supreme Court.

Is she correct in her points?

RYAN GOODMAN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Basically, yes. So, she's correct in the sense of there are other options he could have gone with, which is to put some of his property in a receivership that the Supreme Court would then have control over. That would even be in smart in some sense because then at least he chooses the properties. She doesn't use the properties, so she might go after the Mona Lisas and the like.

So there are options he had. The other options are trying to at least get closer to the $450 million, $550 million with insurance companies by accumulating it through different companies. But he hasn't seemed to do that at all. So there are other ways in which this is just doesn't make sense.

And there's another one as well, which is that he should have probably prepared to lose the case. And if you prepared to lose the case, then he would have actually thought well ahead before any kind of fireside sale.

BURNETT: All right. When so when you say a fire -- a fire sale, that is the situation that he is in right now if indeed the option is to sell a property, Jonathan, and this is exactly what you've looked at. You've finished an in-depth analysis of Trump properties here in New York. Those Mona Lisas as they refer to them.

And I just I want to show everybody the math that you did. This is the fire sale value. So you're knocking 22, 40 percent off the value of each of these buildings to get to the value on the screen. Seven of these properties here in New York, that gets you just actually to write about the $464 million that he would need. The point that you're making here is that you got to add all of them together to even get there.

Now he has said that he has $100 million separately, but, Jonathan, how quickly could such a sale happen? You're looking at a lot of properties in five days.

JONATHAN GREENBERG, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER: Yeah, oh, I don't think he could raise this money. This is the game plan for Letitia James when she seizes the properties to really seize the properties that are the most valuable and the least complicated in terms of moving to a quick sale, which would be probably about 60 days that she could sell these, especially if she cuts him out of the deal as I propose and deals directly to his partners in the three commercial real estate properties, and then goes directly to sell the apartments in the condominiums, including Trump Tower, for their real market value at a reasonable discount of 20 percent.


I've discounted the commercial properties by 40 percent from what Forbes had estimated a year ago based on the fact that commercial properties, not exactly a hot commodity, interest rates are up, and rents are really down.

So I'm assuming -- and that Trump probably lied about his cash flow when Forbes reported that a year ago. So basically, it takes a lot of properties. This is 90 percent of his New York real estate holdings. It's his seven largest holdings, and it's a game plan for Letitia James to act without Trump, to cut him out of the deal and just focus on getting the money for New York state and put him on the defensive for the first time instead of the offensive.

BURNETT: I'm having -- not even laughing, but having flashbacks to when all my properties were mortgaged on the board of monopoly, and how badly that felt.

All right. So there's another thing that could come into play here, and that's bankruptcy and, Stephanie and Ryan, I want to ask you about that.

First, Ryan in a debate, Hillary Clinton Trump declared bankruptcy six times. "Washington Post" fact-checker found that to be true. So this is something he has had no problem doing in the past. And in fact, I don't know what bankruptcy really means when you still get to live the life that he continued to leave, even when, quote/unquote, bankrupt.

So I want to ask Stephanie about this now because it's psychological and emotional as well. But could he do this by Monday? And would it make sense?

GOODMAN: There's a world in which it makes sense, that if he declares bankruptcy, there's an automatic stay on the ability of Tish James to enforce the judgment. At the same time, it doesn't make sense long term. She would still end the end, be able to claim the judgment because at the end of the day -- BURNETT: The properties are there.

GOODMAN: The properties are there and these kinds of properties because of the judgment and because the ruling is about fraud and because its owed to a governmental entity, you can't actually -- the word is discharged. You can't discharge those debts through bankruptcy, so you wouldn't be able to actually get out of those particular debt.


GOODMAN: But at least puts us stay on very quickly.

So that would be one idea for him. Of course, there could be other costs to him politically and otherwise.

BURNETT: And, Stephanie, that's what I want to ask you about, right? I mean, he has built his entire -- his candidacy, his political career of being this billionaire successful businessman. So, yes, as part of that, there were six bankruptcies, but that is something that I -- you know, who knows how many Americans really know that or think that. You don't generally associate bankruptcy with success.

So do you think he would be willing to take that route this time -- at this time in the election?

STEPHANIE GRISHAM, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I do. I think that rather than lose Trump Tower, Mar-a-Lago, or Bedminster, those top three for sure, he would declare bankruptcy and it's because exactly what you said, he's done it before.

But also, he will lean into it. Personally, privately, will he like it? No, he'll hate it.

But he'll lean into it and say this is what I was forced to do. This is because of the left wing. This is because of the New York liberals are doing this to me. This is just a business move to protect myself. I can hear it now.

He won't -- he won't like it personally, but I can absolutely see him doing that. And then, you know, Ryan could probably speak to this more, but once he becomes president, I don't know what kinds of things he would have. I'm sure there would be people who would then suddenly be willing to bail him out of his bankruptcy. So I'm not sure how that would work, but I think anything to stall it and anything to keep those properties, he'll do.

BURNETT: Jonathan, are you hearing anything about interests swirling about any of these properties? I mean, in terms of buyers, do people really take it seriously and think that they're going to be available?

GREENBERG: I think it depends who's selling. I don't think people are going to buy this properties, properties out of bankruptcy from Donald Trump. However, I just want to say that the appeal is dead on Monday if the bond is not posted, and the bond is unlikely to be posted, which means the bankruptcy, it will only give him so much protection against the state.

Letitia James could -- you know, will continue to seize the assets. They will be sold, they'll probably be sold well before the next, you know, the election when he would come in. And the bankruptcy that I'm thinking about is that Letitia James will also immediately seize all his operating capital accounts. That happens day one.


GREENBERG: And once that happens, he doesn't have operating accounts for his other banks and a number of cascading dominos may fall. So in addition to these properties I've put, I believe Trump is facing bankruptcy even without declaring bankruptcy based upon the cash calls that are likely to come from his other properties, a number of which are heavily indebted outside of New York state. They are going to come cascading down come Monday, should Letitia James sees his accounts and do what anyone else would have done to them, you know, in terms of a judgment.


BURNETT: So, Stephanie, what is the emotional and psychological part of this, of course, is hugely significant. I mean, we just played those clips on purpose. You have Connie Chung in 1990, he's talking about his feelings. Again with Larry King.

But if there's anything that defines the core of him, of his -- of his inner self, it's this, it's these properties, it's what he built. So what does this moment actually mean to him?

GRISHAM: You know, look, I can't imagine behind the scenes what he's doing and for that matter, what Melania or the family, most notably Eric and Don Jr. are doing. But it's absolutely crushing him, and I can only imagine the yelling, the throwing of things, the things I've seen so many times.

It's I'm sure killing him and, of course, though, he's going to always say, he's going blame everybody else. I know they put out some kind of a fundraising email today saying keep your grabby hands-off Trump Tower.

So, while inwardly, there's no way this is an absolutely crushing him psychologically, outwardly, he's just going to continue to play the victim.

BURNETT: All right. Thank you all very much.

Next. The Biden impeachment bust. The investigation going nowhere tonight. Republicans, today, wait until you see what happened on the inside of this hearing. One of the witnesses testifying for impeachment actually testified from jail.

Plus, a migrant who illegally entered the United States has been living in the United States for 25 years. And guess what? This person says, Trump should stop calling them rapist, but he would vote for him if he could. And a CNN special investigation tonight, a growing movement in Israel to resettle Gaza -- in Gaza once the war is over.


UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We Jews will be in Gaza.





BURNETT: New tonight, a kabuki theater, an invitation to Biden to testify on Capitol Hill. The House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer says he wants Biden to testify during his own impeachment investigation. It comes as Democrats on Capitol Hill today called Comer's bluff.

Congressman Jared Moskowitz today calling for a vote to impeach Biden. Well, that's exactly what Republicans want, right?


REP. JARED MOSKOWITZ (D-FL): I just think we should do it today, let's just call for it. I'll make the motion, Mr. Chairman, I want to help you out. You can second it, right? Like make the motion to impeach President Biden.

Go ahead. Your turn. Your second now.

No, nothing. Okay. We got nothing.

So I wanted with -- my last couple minutes, show the American people that they're never going to impeach Joe Biden. It's never going to happen because they don't have the evidence.


BURNETT: There were crickets on that. I mean, Republicans Jim Jordan and James Comer who are leading the impeachment inquiry into Biden refused to second that motion during a hearing today.

Now just on the face of it, of course, the reality is, it shows something important. Comer, Jordan, they do not have the votes, and that is because the Republicans leading this effort have not delivered the goods. In fact today in this hearing, what they've delivered is very questionable cast of characters, people like Jason Galanis who claims to be a Hunter Biden associate, who actually testified from behind bars today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. STEPHEN LYNCH (D-MA): I want to remind people, he's sitting in prison. That's why he can't be here today. He's sitting in prison for scamming workers' pensions. I mean, how low can you get?


BURNETT: And there was also Tony Bobulinski, another former Biden family business associate.

Now he has been telling everyone that Joe Biden was deeply involved in his son's overseas business deals. Those claims, however, are not only uncorroborated, but actually have been undercut by other key witnesses. And keep in mind, Bobulinski is a guy who also has questionable ties to an unsavory Russian billionaire, a close ally of Putin's for decades, an oligarch who has been charged in the United States with violating sanctions, international money laundering and conspiracy.

And Bobulinski is not the only star Republican witness who has ties to Russia. In fact, this has been clear for all over the investigation. You may remember Alexander Smirnov, the Republican star source for information on the Biden family -- well, he also happens to be in prison right now for lying to the FBI about the Biden family's dealings in Ukraine. And he told the FBI that he got this false information from Russian intelligence officials.

These are the people that Republicans have been relying on for their investigation, an investigation that at least up until this point has proven to be a waste of taxpayer money. And many Republicans are well aware of this. That is why they do not have the votes and couldn't second the call to actually impeach Biden, even if that wasn't theater as well.

Manu Raju is OUTFRONT on Capitol Hill tonight.

And, Manu, another Biden impeachment hearing, lots of speculation and accusation. But it didn't appear to be any real evidence.

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, it didn't really move the dial either. In fact, I spent the day talking to a lot of Republicans who simply say that they are still waiting to see whether there's enough evidence that they would actually support an article of impeachment against the president. Right now, a lot of them said there's a high bar. That was one congressman, Mike Gallagher, told me earlier today.

And, of course, there's little margin for error for the speaker of the house to move forward on an article of impeachment against Joe Biden. You could only afford to lose two Republican votes on any party-line vote. And right now, there's far more than two who would vote against this effort.

But the question is, what do Republicans do? Who are leading this probe? Do they pull the plug? They move ahead, or do they decide to continue this investigation and keep a cloud over Joe Biden? I put that question directly to Jim Jordan, who runs this committee,

the House Judiciary Committee, as well as other members who sit on the panel as well.


They say, let's keep investigating.


REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): Well, there's no -- the Constitution doesn't put a limit on how much time it takes to do your duty of oversight of the executive branch. So we're going to do our duty. Were going to -- I've always been driven by the facts. I think there's a compelling case there, but I've never said what we should do in the end. We're just going to keep doing our work, and then the conference will make a decision. That's -- that's how the process works.

RAJU: You don't see a conclusion to this it sounds like.

REP. NANCY MACE (R-SC): Well, I think we still need to continue with our investigation before we have a vote. I think a vote would be premature.


RAJU: But she says a vote would be premature. This investigation, of course, it's been going on for many months, really since September, since the former speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, announced this probe. But that's a real challenge that Democrats, Republicans face at the moment if they go forward in article of impeachment vote, it will fail. If they continue on this probe, the question is, why are they continuing this as they have not been able to prove Joe Biden has taken any corrupt action, any official action to help his son, or profited from his son's business dealings.

So as you're seeing from Republicans though, they vote to acquit him, essentially, they would absolve Joe Biden in the middle of an election year. So some of them say, let's just keep investigating -- Erin.

BURNETT: I guess that's why the -- the announcement of an intention to invite the president to testify.

All right. Thank you very much, Manu.

I want to go now to the Democratic Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois, because he's a member of the Oversight Committee which held the Biden impeachment hearing today.

So, Congressman, you were there in the room. Did you learn anything new for many of the witnesses today?

REP. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI (D-IL): No, not at all. It was a circus and it was a waste of time. We should be working on other things aside from this, but unfortunately, this saga continues and I think the same results came out of it, which was nothingburger again. BURNETT: So the Republican chairman of the Oversight Committee, James

Comer, as I mentioned. he maintains that the president is either complicit or in competent about his family's business dealings, but he wouldn't move ahead with impeachment.

Now, why do you think that is at its heart?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: There's no evidence that would suggest impeachable crimes. Their star -- their star witness in their first impeachment hearing, Jonathan Turley, who is an expert witness, said there was no evidence of impeachment, various colleagues have said the same thing. And today if he were to move forward with that, he wouldn't have the votes on the floor.

BURNETT: So I want to ask you one thing though, and this is at the heart of why they continued down this path at some level, and that is how the American public sees this. But Hunter Biden's former business partner, and this individual, his testimony has not yet been disputed. He has said that Joe Biden was put on speaker phone around 20 times during Hunter's meeting with business partners and he did say that that those conversations could have been about the weather or whatever it might be, but nonetheless, obviously, really important person to put on the call, right, when you're trying to get business.

He said that Biden attended dinners with his son, Hunter, and foreign business associates of Hunter's. But he does say nothing of importance was discussed at those times. Again, though, talking about the importance of the meetings, and that is why maybe 68 percent of Americans think President Biden did act either illegally or unethically in Hunter Biden's business dealings.

Now that's on associated press poll from October. Don't have anything more recent, but that's the latest that we do have on this. And it raises the question, Congressman, as to whether you are concerned that there was anything like that and that the damage to President Biden politically is serious.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: No. Here's why -- because unfortunately for the Republicans, they haven't been able to show evidence of impeachable conduct. He might have been on a speaker phone. He never took any official action to help his son in any of those business dealings and one of the most interesting things was this line of questioning that I had with Lev Parnas who is sent to Ukraine to try to dig dirt on the Bidens to harm him during the presidential campaign.

And Lev Parnas said, he found zero evidence as of any criminality in all of his travels to Ukraine. And basically, the only person who is willing to come forward with dirt turned out to be a Russian asset. That's Alexander Smirnov, whom you referred to before.

And so we're kind of in this situation where the Republicans are not able to produce any evidence of impeachable conduct. And the evidence that they have is suspect to say the least.

BURNETT: All right. Congressman, I appreciate your time. Thank you so much. KRISHNAMOORTHI: Thank you.

BURNETT: And next, the Texas governor tonight ordering police to arrest migrants for criminal trespass. Yet, you're going to hear in a moment from a migrant here in the United States who he says he would back Trump if he could and he'll tell you why.

And Oprah Winfrey speaking right now to Gayle King and Charles Barkley about her weight loss. We will have the first preview from their interview coming up.



BURNETT: Tonight, Texas Governor Greg Abbott taking matters into his own hands, allowing Texas state police to arrest migrants for, quote, criminal trespass, as any moment now, a court is expected to rule on whether his state is breaking the law.

And this is a crucial ruling. It could have massive implications across the United States.

President Biden is in Texas tonight. He's expected to speak shortly.

And Rosa Flores is OUTFRONT near the southern border. And now, you're going to hear her speaking to a migrant who slams the Republicans for villainizing people like him, but says that he would vote for Trump if he could.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE (translated): I'm an undocumented immigrant.


ROSA FLORES, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Hilacio Velasquez is an undocumented immigrant who has lived in Houston for 25 years.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If I could vote at this moment, I would vote for Donald Trump.

He's a nationalist and he wants this country to be well.

My children were born here, and I want my children to be well.

Joe Biden has made the country an economic disaster.

FLORES: What would you tell Democrats who think that all immigrants are going to be on their side.

UNIDENTFIED MALE: Stop thinking that immigrants are ignorant.

Democrats are the kind nun you find on the street who tells you that they are going to help you. But when they have the power to help, they forgot their promises. Republicans use us like an electoral pinata. They say, we are at fault for everything. We're guilty of rapes. We are guilty of the drug consumption. But that's a great lie.

FLORES: Velasquez says one of the measures used by Texas Republicans to terrorize the undocumented community is S.B.4, the Texas immigration law that's in legal limbo.

MIGUEL A. RODRIGUEZ, JR., LAREDO, TX POLICE CHIEF: You see somebody crossing the river automatically, you know that that he's violating that law.

FLORES: Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the law to go into effect after a district court previously blocked it. Hours later, an appeals court blocked it again, causing confusion across the state.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think even legal experts are calling this judicial whiplash.

FLORES: Today, more whiplash as the appeals court hears oral arguments and Texas Governor Greg Abbott is vowing to enforce the laws already in the books.

GOV. GREG ABBOTT (R), TEXAS: Even without S.B.4, Texas has the legal authority to arrest people coming across the razor wire at barriers on our border.

FLORES: One Texas sheriff says the situation makes it difficult to implement the law and puts an undue burden on local communities.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This could put us in a situation where we could seen jail closures because well be at capacity.

FLORES: Despite Velazquez's criticism of Republicans and their use of anti-immigrant rhetoric -- he says he wants Donald Trump to win.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's a racist and of course I don't like that he's a racist. Of course I don't like Donald Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric, but at the end of the day, it's just politics. Some will judge me, you want Donald Trump to win. Well, its' because he's a nationalist, that's why I want him to win. Nationalists love their country.


BURNETT: Rosa, that's just so incredibly powerful. I mean, he's saying, calling immigrants rapists, and using drugs is a great lie, that Trump's a racist. And yet he wants him to win because he's a nationalist, nationalists love their country. I mean, what an incredible conversation.

FLORES: You know, and one of the things that really stood out, Erin, is I asked him specifically about Trump's plan to put undocumented immigrants like him in camps and deport them back to their home countries and he said that he would still support Trump because he doesn't believe that Trump would actually act on that anti-immigrant rhetoric. He says that that plan would be inhumane and illogical, and that Trump but would not act on that.

And, Erin, he had one other piece of advice for Republicans. He said, if Republicans would stop using anti-immigrant rhetoric, they would secure more of the Hispanic vote -- Erin.

BURNETT: All right. Rosa, thank you very much, just amazing reporting. Thank you.

And next, a special investigation OUTFRONT. We're going to take you inside the Israeli movement to resettle Israelis in Gaza once the war is over.


WARD: I think the people who live here, but also the people who live in Gaza. What happens to them in this vision of this new settlement?


BURNETT: And Oprah Winfrey tonight, opening up about dieting and her use of weight loss drugs. That interview with Gayle King and Charles Barkley just wrapping up, and we'll share with you the first one.



BURNETT: Tonight, new video into OUTFRONT. This is of an Israeli drone strike in the west bank, at least three people were killed, one seriously injured. This is according to the Palestinian Red Crescent Society. The IDF says that it hit what they call terrorist operatives inside a car.

Now this comes as a new CNN investigation reveals just how much traction the push for Israeli settlements, not in the West Bank, now in Gaza, is getting.

Our Clarissa Ward speaking to a woman at the center of this movement, an idea that frankly was seen as incredibly extreme two most Israelis, the vast majority of Israelis before the October 7 attacks. Now though she says she's hearing from hundreds of families interested in living in a new Israeli, quote, Riviera in Gaza after the war.

Clarissa Ward is OUTFRONT with this special report.


WARD (voice-over): High in the hills of the occupied West Bank, a flag flies in the face of a Palestinian village. God is king, it says. Two young settlers guard this illegal outpost, construction hasn't even begun, but we are not welcome.

So they're asking us to leave. They don't want to talk to us. They said they'd been here for about nine months.

Dotted across the landscape, more signs of the fight to assert Israeli control over Palestinian land.


The Arabic names on signpost crudely erased.

Under international law, the Beit Hogla settlement is illegal, but last February, the Israeli government officially recognized it along with eight others, a move the U.S. strongly opposed.

We're here because God promised us this land, Israel Picar (ph) tells us.

Now, these settlers have set their sights on a new prize, one that seemed utterly impossible before October 7.

Returning to Gaza, they cheer.

That is the goal of Zionist settler organization Nachala, one of more than a dozen groups now advocating for the reestablishment of Israeli settlements in Gaza.

The recent promotional video even boasts that Gaza will become the next Riviera.

Daniella Weiss is the godmother of the movement. She's already started recruiting from the 700,000-strong settler community of Israel.

We're just arrived having now at a settlement in the occupied West Bank and we're heading to a talk that Daniella Weiss is giving to a group of people who are potentially interested in resettling Gaza.

We are for the land of Israel and Ben-Gvir, she says.

About 20 people gather in the living room. Weiss knows that for many in this community, there is deep nostalgia for Gush Katif, a bloc of 21 Israeli settlements that there were forcibly evacuated by the IDF in 2005 when Israel left the Gaza Strip.

This is the vision of Gaza, she says. You see all the nucleus groups.

A map has already been drawn up. Six groups laying claim to different parts of the enclave.

So they've just been handing out these little booklets that say people of Israel return home, and then underneath, a call to return to the settlements of Gaza.

One of the organizers tells the group they have a representative flying to Florida to raise money.

Nachala gets support from a number of groups in the U.S., including AFSI, Americans For a Safe Israel, which co-sponsored a recent webinar on the return to Gush Katif, even as the Biden administration has cracked down on settlements in the West Bank.

DANIELLA WEISS, DIRECTOR OF NACHALA: There is very strong support from very prominent, from very I would say wealthy people, wealthy Jews who support --

WARD: In the U.S.?

WEISS: In the U.S.

WARD: Can you name any names?

WEISS: No, I cannot, no.

WARD: Back at her home in Kdumim settlement, Weiss tells us she's already enrolled 500 families.

WEISS: I even have on my on my cell phone names of people who say enlist me, enroll me. I want to join. I want to join the groups that are going to settle Gaza.

WARD: I have to ask you, though, because we're sitting here talking and we're listening to the call to prayer.

WEISS: Yeah, I'm listening. I hope you are listening to it.

WARD: Which is a reminder I think of the people who live here, but also the people who live in Gaza. What happens to them --

WEISS: Okay.

WARD: -- in this vision of this new settlement with Jewish settlers even in Gaza City?

WEISS: What I think about Gaza, the Arabs of Gaza lost the right to be in Gaza on the 7th of October. Yes. I do hear the mosque. I do hear the prayer. Things were different until the 7th of October.

No Arab, I'm speaking about more than 2 million Arabs --

WARD: Uh-uh.

WEISS: -- they will not stay there. We, Jews, will be in Gaza.

WARD: That sounds like ethnic cleansing.

WEISS: The Arabs want to annihilate the state of Israel. So you can call them monsters. You can -- you can call their -- call them cleansing of Jews. We are not doing to them. They are doing to us.

I couldn't make it clearer when I said that myself, as a person who is preoccupied with settling the land until the 7th of October. I didn't have plans of returning to Gaza. It's clear. I'm not interested in cleansing.

WARD: What is clear is that Weiss's views traditionally seen as extreme in Israel have become more popular since October 7th. In late January, jubilant crowds packed an auditorium in Jerusalem for the victory of Israel conference, calling for the resettlement of Gaza. A poll that month from the Jewish People Policy Institute found that 26 percent of Israelis advocate the reconstruction of the Gush Katif settlements after the war is over.


Among supporters of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing coalition government, that number jumps to 51 percent. Several ministers were present at the conference, including far-right Heritage Minister Amihai Eliyahu.

In a rare interview with Western media, he tells us his political decisions are guided by the Torah.

Is there anything about Gush Katif in here?


WARD: And that settlements in Gaza are needed to prevent another October 7th.

ELIYAHU (through translator): The language of the land says that wherever there is a Jewish settlement, there will be more security. It doesn't mean there will be absolute security, but there will be more security.

WARD: Why would you advocate for something that many would say is illegal, is immoral, is not supported by the majority of Israelis? And is also very harmful to Israel in terms of its international standing?

ELIYAHU (through translator): Why do you think it's immoral to take land from someone who wants to kill me? Why is it immoral to take my land, which my ancestors lived there, which I have even given up to someone who slaughters, rapes, and murders me? What is more immoral than that?

WARD: Netanyahu has called resettling Gaza, quote, an unrealistic goal. Most Israelis agreed. But that hasn't stopped scores of IDF soldiers fighting there from posting videos calling for a return to Gush Katif.

For many supporters of the settler movement, what was once a distant fantasy is now a fervent dream.


WARD (on camera): Now, Erin, we also spent some time in Tel-Aviv. We went to a large anti-government protest, the largest. In fact, since October 7. And certainly nobody there to give you some perspective was talking about re-establishing Gush Katif or re-establishing any kind of settlements inside Gaza.

But we talked to one woman who's a professor in what she said I think was really interesting. She said, listen, they are a minority, these extreme right-wing settler types. But they are politically a very powerful minority at the moment because they have such strong representation in Benjamin Netanyahu's coalition government. She also said, which I think is relevant to this idea, that their ideas, which were traditionally seen as fringe now have a lot more traction because in the aftermath of October 7, you do see a hardening of views in Israel, you do see a shift to the right just as you do many other countries after a massive attack like that, certainly you saw something similar after 9/11 in the U.S., Erin.

BURNETT: All right. Clarissa, thank you very much. Just incredible to see that into hear what they have to say.

OUTFRONT next, Oprah Winfrey, just speaking to Gayle King and Charles Barkley about her weight loss struggles, and how a weight-loss medication has changed her life.

It's a story everyone has been wanting to here and we have the first clip from their interview next.



BURNETT: Tonight, Oprah Winfrey opening up about her dramatic weight loss. In an exclusive interview with our Gayle King and Charles Barkley, Winfrey pushing back against those who say, people are overweight, are taking drugs away from diabetes patient, and she reveals the exact reason that she turned to Ozempic like drugs and that interviewed literally with Charles and Gayle just wrapped up.

We do though have the first preview for you.


OPRAH WINFREY, CELEBRITY TV HOST: Years ago, as you know, Gayle, on "The Oprah Show" in the early -- late '80s, early '90s, we were doing a lot of shows about alcoholism and people were saying, then the same thing they're saying now, you know, just put the food down. They were saying just put the bottle down because nobody understood that for some people, not everybody who drinks are over-drinks becomes an alcoholic.

But if you carry the marker or the gene that has -- that allows alcoholism to flourish with you, you become -- you then develop alcoholism. Not everybody who overdrinks because I can drink you're under the table and not -- and not now.

GAYLE KING, CNN HOST: Yes, she's not lying. Yes, tequila shots, anyone?

WINFREY: Yes. I can out-Tequila almost anybody. And it's not an issue for me, but I can't -- if I'm doing the same thing with donuts or, you fatty things, you know, I -- up until this Christmas, every Christmas of my life, I gain seven to eight pounds.

And so, to be able to have people understand, so I had three goals. Number one, people understand obesity is a disease. And so, stop blaming yourself for something that's in your brain. Stop shaming yourself and other people for that. And also to explain what the drugs actually do. So I want to -- want to say this because we taped an hour and 14

minutes extra and had to cut that out. And so, it was really important for me -- for people to understand, all the people who are saying that people like myself, and you, Charles, are taking this medicine from other people. We are not because there are, there are Zepbound, there's Mounjaro, there's Wegovy, there's Ozempic.

So both companies that we had on produce a medications that are just for obesity. And the reason why obesity and obesity drug and the diabetes drug are called something different is because your insurance pays for the diabetes drugs, if you have diabetes. It does not pay for the weight loss version of that drug.

So, nobody's taking drugs away from anybody else or medications away from anybody else because there is specifically an obesity medication. I think if you feel like being in a bigger body is great and you don't want to do anything about that and you feel fine, that is beautiful. I really admire people who really believe that.

And I also feel like if you think, if you can work out and workout and I'm like you, Charles, I couldn't work out anymore. I mean, like I can't climb any faster or run any faster, I can't -- I'm going to eat. That was down to eat one meal a day. I can't -- there's nothing else I can do.


BURNETT: Well, you can watch the entire conversation with Gayle, Charles and Oprah on "KING CHARLES" at 10:00.

Thanks for joining us.

Anderson starts now.